Gear & Gadgets —

A netbook for every need: small computers get big options

With the introduction of more ARM-based "smartbook" chips and Intel's …

Intel and the ARM vendors all made big mobile pushes last week at Computex, and the picture of the netbook/smartbook market that's emerging from the mix is one of a world with many segments and options. Between Intel's multiplying Atom-based lineup, the Cortex-based SoCs that are in the works, and the Android vs. MeeGo vs. Windows 7 (and vs. Chrome OS in the fall) war, the netbook market is actually segmenting along price, power, and performance lines.

At the very bottom end will be the ARM-based "smartbooks," particularly the ones based on single- and dual-core Cortex A8 SoCs. These will provide maximum battery life but minimum performance, and they'll almost all run Android. Samsung actually announced a dual-core version of its Snapdragon SoC, which brings the A8 up to 1GHz and will sit at the very top end of the A8-based smartbook market.

Next up the ladder will be Intel's newly announced Oak Trail platform, which is essentially a netbook version of Moorestown. Recall that Moorestown is Intel's Atom-based platform for "embedded" applications, like phones and tablets, and it's a multichip-solution—there's the "Lincroft" SoC, (GPU, CPU, memory controller, and some graphics blocks) and the "Langwell" I/O hub (SSD controller, USB controller, image processing blocks for built-in cameras, and parts that make sense in a smartphone or tablet). What Langwell doesn't have is a PCIe controller, which makes it unsuitable for use in a Windows netbook.

Oak Trail remedies this shortcoming in Moorestown by swapping out the Langwell I/O hub with the more PC-friendly Whitney Point hub, which supports PCIe and SATA. So Oak Trail will get you better performance than an A8-based smartbook, but even more importantly, it will give you the option to flush all that performance advantage down the pipes by putting a full Windows 7 install on your netbook.

Users who put a full-sized desktop OS on Oak Trail will almost certainly see worse performance and worse battery life than an Android- and ARM-based smartbook, but they will be able to use Windows. I'd imagine that many Oak Trail buyers will want to dual-boot, pairing Windows 7 with something like MeeGo.

The next rung up on the performance ladder is the single-core Pine Trail, followed by the dual-core, netbook-oriented Pine Trail parts that Intel showed off at Computex. Intel has thus far kept its dual-core Atoms confined to the low-end desktop, but as of the most recent Intel Investor Day, the company has revealed that it's moving them into netbooks.

The other netbook platform that Intel showed off at Computex is codenamed Canoe Lake, and it's aimed at ultrathin netbooks. Intel hasn't revealed much in the way of details on what's so special about Canoe Lake, but somehow it involves squeezing Pine Trail into a really thin form factor. IDG has a good writeup on Canoe Lake, along with some pictures of the demo laptop that Intel was showing off.

Finally, at the top end of the netbook market will be NVIDIA's ION 2, which combines NVIDIA's discrete mobile GPUs with Intel's Pine Trail. ION 2 will offer a premium netbook experience that strains the definition of "netbook" and blurs it into "laptop."

When you add all of this up, it makes for a mobile market where the segmentation is extremely fine-grained, and where there are a ton of options for hitting a wide range of price/performance/battery life points. Indeed, here's roughly how the market breaks down, from the low end to the high end:

Category

Processor

OS

Smartbook

Single- and dual-core A8

Linux*

Smartbook

Single- and dual-core A9

Linux

Smartbook/Netbook

Oak Trail

Linux, Windows

Netbook

Single- and dual-core Pine Trail

Linux, Windows

Netbook

Ion 2

Linux, Windows

*Linux is Android, MeeGo, ChromeOS, etc.

That's a lot of segmentation, and even within those small segments single- and dual-core offerings will further subdivide the options. And that's just for 2010 (mostly the second half). AMD's Ontario ultramobile platform will drop in 2011, and then we'll have another platform in the mix. Contrast this to 2009, when "netbook" meant "single-core Atom, mostly running Windows."

The one thing that you might notice about the above chart is that Windows only works for half of it, and really, as I said above, Windows 7 on Oak Trail may be a stretch. There's a whole raft of Linux derivatives and flavors, in contrast, that will fit multiple segments quite nicely, and these can be further tweaked to specific hardware and experiences.

The ball is in Microsoft's court to remedy this situation; otherwise, Redmond is just ceding a hot new mobile segment to Linux, the same way that it appears to be ceding tablets to Apple and Google.

Many end users could get away with Linux at this point. I haven't tried using it on a day-to-day basis, but my initial experience with the second last version of Ubuntu was very positive. It just worked.

The problem is that the average end user doesn't want Linux. The second they're shown something at a store running Linux, most of them will just flat out say "no". They know how to download/install MSN Messenger on Windows, but they'd never figure out what the equivalent is in Linux.

These people will echo sentiment similar to that of Mac users: "I just want it to work." Translation in this case: "I don't want to learn anything new, I just want to use it in the way I've been using computers all along."

Microsoft definitely needs a lite version of Windows for this crowd. Something with the enterprise features stripped out, anything that wouldn't run well in a netbook situation, etc.

i would love to buy a linux smartbook if it has a decent screensize (13") and great battery life. i've been using ubuntu as my main os for 2 years and it would be nice if i could use it on something lighter/smaller than a 9lb 16" laptop thats 4yrs old. Does flash have a ARM port?

I want to just point out that Apple isn't dominating the "tablet computer" sector. They realized that tablet computers were failure through-out the years because they were trying to be computers. So, they stripped that part out, and made it into a robust iPhone / iPod ... a robust media-consumption device. And that is what they're dominating at, and that is why it's successful. And that's also what these other competitors don't seem to get, and why their "tablet computers" are going to fail when they toss them out into the wild with Windows 7 or whatever on them.

As for Microsoft, I think they're really missing the boat on this. They've been so complacent with dominating the desktop, but the people don't want to be chained to a desktop anymore. We're past the "industrial revolution" of computing, where you have a swiss-army desktop that does everything. Folks have moved on to multiple, specialized devices that overlap in functionality, sync via cloud, and promote mobility and productivity. They've made a good start at trimming down Win 7, and they're going along with their new Win Mobile. But they really need to fill that gap pretty quick.

I want to just point out that Apple isn't dominating the "tablet computer" sector. They realized that tablet computers were failure through-out the years because they were trying to be computers. So, they stripped that part out, and made it into a robust iPhone / iPod ... a robust media-consumption device. And that is what they're dominating at, and that is why it's successful. And that's also what these other competitors don't seem to get, and why their "tablet computers" are going to fail when they toss them out into the wild with Windows 7 or whatever on them.

As for Microsoft, I think they're really missing the boat on this. They've been so complacent with dominating the desktop, but the people don't want to be chained to a desktop anymore. We're past the "industrial revolution" of computing, where you have a swiss-army desktop that does everything. Folks have moved on to multiple, specialized devices that overlap in functionality, sync via cloud, and promote mobility and productivity. They've made a good start at trimming down Win 7, and they're going along with their new Win Mobile. But they really need to fill that gap pretty quick.

There is nothing necessary in the way Apple is doing things besides the dumbed down shell. I'm not even sure that part is necessary. The device does not need to be locked down. It doesn't need to be cut off from other real computers. It doesn't need a vendor-only package repository. It doesn't need a crippled web browser.

Although all of those things are helpful in creating the illusion that an ARM works well for general purpose web and video. You simply don't get to do the things that would make it fall on it's face. You don't get to run Flash or try to play a video straight from your camcorder.

The iPad is a weak-*ss machine. It's a throwback to about 10 years ago. You need a beefy desktop machine fronting for it if you want to play your own content. It can't even play stuff from broadcast TV. The CPU is too slow and there isn't suitable explicit hardware acceleration support.

The Apple version of the tablet really is an overgrown ipod.

That's fine only if you can remain distracted from what else you can't do.

Although all of those things are helpful in creating the illusion that an ARM works well for general purpose web and video. You simply don't get to do the things that would make it fall on it's face. You don't get to run Flash...

I do wonder what sort of Macbook Air Apple could make with a Canoe Lake if the graphics was up to it and it had a (decent) SSD.

I would imagine the SSD aspect would mean it smoke the HDD based Airs in actual usability so long as the CPU was up to things like flash and the graphics could deal with the chrome and glitz of OS X. Obviously substantially behind the existing SSD Air implementation though.

Likely plenty of apps would run like a dog based on their compilation targets, But I would think that people looking for something a bit heftier than an iPad (so multi user mode, full OS X capability and built in keyboard) but that didn't want to pay more than twice the price (in the UK at least) for the privilege.

I would think that would cannibalise the iPad market though, and that generates them app store dollars in the way an OS X Machine just can't.

There is NO dual-core Cortex-A8. It always has been, and always will be, a single CPU solution.

You also place ARM based SoCs at the bottom of the performance pecking order, but there is not enough real-world comparative benchmarking to say whether ARM or Intel are better performers, and given the diversity of chipsets and OSes in the ARM world, this is not a simple comparison to make.

You assert that Oak trail - by virtue of having a SATA or PCIe port on the IO Hub - will be higher performance than ARM based netbook SoCs, yet you fail to mention that there are loads of ARM based SoCs out there, and some do have both SATA and PCIe. As such, this is not strictly true if the only differentiator is IO capabiltiy, since someone building an ARM netbook could equally choose on with PCIe and SATA (or choose not to, and save money - something you can't do with Intel's Oak Trail).

Those things aside, I'm not entirely sure that the market will sustain all of these similar form factors and the nomencalture that goes with them. People will find it hard to keep up with the minute detail of what distinguishes an Oak Trail netbook from a Pine Trail netbook. People don't know how their computers are built, and will only distinguish differences in industrial design and OS GUI. The rest is of no interest to them.

I think there will be two camps - laptop style form factors (smartbooks/netbooks/laptops etc) and tablets. I think we will stop calling them netbooks/smartbooks in future and just class the smaller devices as smaller laptops. The smartbook was coined at a time when the ARM camp was trying to equal - but differentiate from - the Intel powered netbook, when in fact the real game changer was waiting in the wings: the tablet. Now that Apple has validated the tablet form factor, and everyone is trying to keep up, I think the various camps see the split now as being between devices with and without keyboards.

It is surprising to see all the varieties of netbooks in the market for the different needs and purposes. Same with apps, services and features. It's like the audience has a lot to choose from and I believe that in the end the most successful ones will be the ones that get to adapt itself better to the market. Let's ee what happens...

There is NO dual-core Cortex-A8. It always has been, and always will be, a single CPU solution.

You also place ARM based SoCs at the bottom of the performance pecking order, but there is not enough real-world comparative benchmarking to say whether ARM or Intel are better performers, and given the diversity of chipsets and OSes in the ARM world, this is not a simple comparison to make.

...

Nonsense. There are plenty of us with this hardware in our hands. We're all capable of seeing how this stuff works in basic use cases. The guys at Ars certainly have all of this stuff at their disposal. Try it for yourself and it becomes quickly apparent that the ARM doesn't have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU. It lags far behind the Atom if it doesn't have dedicated video acceleration.

An ARM needs something on par with ION2 in terms of video acceleration just to be able to keep up with what an Atom can do without GPU acceleration.

That's why some of us see the new AppleTV as a likely step down from the old one. Apple will likely design it to only handle h264 and nothing else.

Although all of those things are helpful in creating the illusion that an ARM works well for general purpose web and video. You simply don't get to do the things that would make it fall on it's face. You don't get to run Flash...

the average end user doesn't want Linux. These people will echo sentiment similar to that of Mac users: "I just want it to work." Translation in this case: "I don't want to learn anything new, I just want to use it in the way I've been using computers all along." Microsoft definitely needs a lite version of Windows for this crowd.

+1 It's very frustrating to see M$ foist awkward changes (especially Office) and users will take it because of branding. I think it's easier to transition from Office 2003 to Open Office, and XP to Ubuntu, than to follow the MS upgrade path-- but what do I know?

Nonsense. There are plenty of us with this hardware in our hands. We're all capable of seeing how this stuff works in basic use cases. The guys at Ars certainly have all of this stuff at their disposal. Try it for yourself and it becomes quickly apparent that the ARM doesn't have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU. It lags far behind the Atom if it doesn't have dedicated video acceleration..

Jedidiah: In what sense doesn't the ARM have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU? It *is* a general purpose CPU, and therefore it isn't clear to see why your assertions about video have made it into your arguement.

The ball is in Microsoft's court to remedy this situation; otherwise, Redmond is just ceding a hot new mobile segment to Linux, the same way that it appears to be ceding tablets to Apple and Google.

Except that, unlike the tablet market, the margins at the low end of the smartbook/netbook market are so thin that Microsoft could only expect to make peanuts out of it anyway. Doesn't look like a particularly big loss really.

Next up the ladder will be...The next rung up on the performance ladder...

I think there's a conceptual error in how you're covering this. You're writing as though the single most important metric is the hardware's performance. You're laying the products out, measured on a single axis, and saying "There's not much separation here."

I'm not saying that your ultimate conclusion is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that without sketching out the product's placement in at least a 3D space, you're missing some important aspects of segmentation.

Performance, Power, Features. Form Factor too. Make it 4D space.

It's not that you didn't talk about those, but the ladder analogy doesn't support thinking about it correctly.

I don't mean this to sidetrack the conversation, but the article reminds me of how politics always gets shoved into a single left/right axis, and how sometimes it fits on that axis very, very poorly.

I think Mac OS runs just fine on a single core Atom. I wonder why Windows 7 would be a stretch?

Give me a dual core version of a netbook with OS X and I'll be happy.

Windows 7 runs fine on an N270, N280 or Pine Trail Atom too (aka the overwhelming majority of past, present, and foreseeable future netbooks). Lots of people run Windows 7 on these. What it may not run fine on is Oak Trail, which is slower than any of those. Even XP is a bit constrained by the Z-series Atoms (e.g. Z520), and Oak Trail may be an issue as well.

Microsoft definitely needs a lite version of Windows for this crowd. Something with the enterprise features stripped out, anything that wouldn't run well in a netbook situation, etc.

Past Smartbooks (including a crazy MIPS version that runs $100-150) have often shipped with Windows CE (aka Windows Embedded Compact) on board.

Win 7 Starter is the Lite version of "real Windows", and below that you go to Compact. It's possible that an even more stripped down version might come with the next version of Windows, though they may choose to simply beef up CE and make it more like regular Windows.

Nonsense. There are plenty of us with this hardware in our hands. We're all capable of seeing how this stuff works in basic use cases. The guys at Ars certainly have all of this stuff at their disposal. Try it for yourself and it becomes quickly apparent that the ARM doesn't have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU. It lags far behind the Atom if it doesn't have dedicated video acceleration..

Jedidiah: In what sense doesn't the ARM have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU? It *is* a general purpose CPU, and therefore it isn't clear to see why your assertions about video have made it into your arguement.

I think what he means is that you will never find an ARM powered Desktop or Laptop. They are specialized processors for specialized devices, like tablets, e-readers, and phones. The flavor that appears in a netbook are significantly less powerful than an Atom based netbook.

Nonsense. There are plenty of us with this hardware in our hands. We're all capable of seeing how this stuff works in basic use cases. The guys at Ars certainly have all of this stuff at their disposal. Try it for yourself and it becomes quickly apparent that the ARM doesn't have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU. It lags far behind the Atom if it doesn't have dedicated video acceleration..

Jedidiah: In what sense doesn't the ARM have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU? It *is* a general purpose CPU, and therefore it isn't clear to see why your assertions about video have made it into your arguement.

It's SLOW.

It is much slower than Atom.

That is why an Atom can decode simpler video formats without the GPU and an ARM can't.

This is a handy thing if you are interested in a video appliance. Although I am sure tablet developers would find something else to do with the extra computational capacity if they had it. However, the main point was that it is quite possible to make performance evaluations on this stuff.

Been there. Did that.

You can pick your metric and the Ars guys can have at it. Some of us in the peanut gallery can too.

"The problem is that the average end user doesn't want Linux. The second they're shown something at a store running Linux, most of them will just flat out say "no". They know how to download/install MSN Messenger on Windows, but they'd never figure out what the equivalent is in Linux.

These people will echo sentiment similar to that of Mac users: "I just want it to work." Translation in this case: "I don't want to learn anything new, I just want to use it in the way I've been using computers all along.""

Except that "Mac users" were perfectly happy to learn to use a COMPLETELY new way of interacting with a computer when the iPhone came out. The issue is not user laziness, it is Linux UI crappiness. Blame the user all you like, but that fact won't change.

"They know how to download/install MSN Messenger on Windows, but they'd never figure out what the equivalent is in Linux."

OK, so here we have an example. The easy solution is to put together something like Apple's .dmg +installer files --- to install an app I download a SINGLE file which I double click and, voila, the app is installed. I don't see a command-line, I don't get told about the download of fifteen dependent packages, I don't type make all, nothing. In an ideal world, this includes, among other things, that you have a RICH UP-TO-DATE always installed collection of libs, the equivalent of what Apple ships in an OS release, so that there is no BS about having to install libjpeg and libz and so on. And it means versioning technology like in OS X so that apps can be much more self-contained in what material they contain internally, so that we don't get battles over lib versions. And it means a system that, automatically, checks with the mother ship every so often and updates itself.If you can't deliver that minimum level of functionality you have no right to be whining that your usability is just as good as everyone else's. So it's difficult because you have to support every piece of hardware on earth. Well that's your choice --- you figure it out. Use CLANG and an intermediate language; make the compile still happen, but invisibly; I don't care. The technology is not the issue --- the issue is that the user expectation has been defined, now meet it.

The hard solution, of course, is something like the app store. Now we don't even have .dmg files and installers --- I hit one button on a web page or suchlike and the app is installed. Again, that's the user expectation. You either meet it or you don't. But you don't get to run around whining that "we are just as good as Apple/Windows for desktop users" when you can't even match this basic level of functionality.

Nonsense. There are plenty of us with this hardware in our hands. We're all capable of seeing how this stuff works in basic use cases. The guys at Ars certainly have all of this stuff at their disposal. Try it for yourself and it becomes quickly apparent that the ARM doesn't have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU. It lags far behind the Atom if it doesn't have dedicated video acceleration..

Jedidiah: In what sense doesn't the ARM have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU? It *is* a general purpose CPU, and therefore it isn't clear to see why your assertions about video have made it into your arguement.

I think what he means is that you will never find an ARM powered Desktop or Laptop. They are specialized processors for specialized devices, like tablets, e-readers, and phones. The flavor that appears in a netbook are significantly less powerful than an Atom based netbook.

I think never is a strong word... Give it time, and there will be ARM in all form factors. With multiple ARM suppliers putting price pressure on current desktop manufacturers in their own space, I think competition will start to hurt them.

Nonsense. There are plenty of us with this hardware in our hands. We're all capable of seeing how this stuff works in basic use cases. The guys at Ars certainly have all of this stuff at their disposal. Try it for yourself and it becomes quickly apparent that the ARM doesn't have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU. It lags far behind the Atom if it doesn't have dedicated video acceleration..

Jedidiah: In what sense doesn't the ARM have anything going for it as a general purpose CPU? It *is* a general purpose CPU, and therefore it isn't clear to see why your assertions about video have made it into your arguement.

It's SLOW.

It is much slower than Atom.

That is why an Atom can decode simpler video formats without the GPU and an ARM can't.

This is a handy thing if you are interested in a video appliance. Although I am sure tablet developers would find something else to do with the extra computational capacity if they had it. However, the main point was that it is quite possible to make performance evaluations on this stuff.

Been there. Did that.

You can pick your metric and the Ars guys can have at it. Some of us in the peanut gallery can too.

I'm starting to see a theme in your posts.

In what way is the ARM processor slow? I'm sure I heard that Cortex-A9 reaches 2GHz, but of course we all know that clock frequency doesn't scale any more. So it is also a multi-core processor - up to 4 CPUs.

To counteract your ridiculous video assertions, here is a video of a Texas Intruments Beagle board development system decoding 720p video - in software - on an ARM Cortex-A8 processor, using a NEON optimised video codec:

You do know what NEON is, right? If not, check out ARMs web-site - you might then re-evaluate most of your opinions.

I don't really see a cohesive arguement in what you are saying. The ARM processor comes in many forms, and hits many performance points. From the Cortex-M0 to the Cortex-A9, and in the future we will see the Eagle core.

We can indeed pick our metrics, but ultimately the market will dictate what happens over and above any conjectures that are made by people such as yourself and I.

The hard solution, of course, is something like the app store. Now we don't even have .dmg files and installers --- I hit one button on a web page or suchlike and the app is installed. Again, that's the user expectation. You either meet it or you don't. But you don't get to run around whining that "we are just as good as Apple/Windows for desktop users" when you can't even match this basic level of functionality.

So you want Linux to have an app store, where you can just select an application to install and it will also install the necessary dependencies and also checks with the mothership for updates?

I don't know when you last tried Linux, or if you've ever used Ubuntu, but do you mean a bit like this?:

In what way is the ARM processor slow? I'm sure I heard that Cortex-A9 reaches 2GHz, but of course we all know that clock frequency doesn't scale any more. So it is also a multi-core processor - up to 4 CPUs.

To counteract your ridiculous video assertions, here is a video of a Texas Intruments Beagle board development system decoding 720p video - in software - on an ARM Cortex-A8 processor, using a NEON optimised video codec:

You do know what NEON is, right? If not, check out ARMs web-site - you might then re-evaluate most of your opinions.

I don't really see a cohesive arguement in what you are saying. The ARM processor comes in many forms, and hits many performance points. From the Cortex-M0 to the Cortex-A9, and in the future we will see the Eagle core.

We can indeed pick our metrics, but ultimately the market will dictate what happens over and above any conjectures that are made by people such as yourself and I.

It shows a single-core 800MHz A8 squaring off against an Atom N450 downclocked to 1GHz, as well as a Via Nano and a Mobile Athlon. Typically the N450 will run at 1.6GHz, but as you said, A9s come with up to 4 CPUs, and the clock can be scaled up as well.

The A8 holds its own on most of the integer-based test, but is awful on most of the FP tests, and using the most common memory configuration for ARM, performs terribly on memory throughput. Of course, there's no rule saying ARM devices can't use faster memory.

My personal takeaway: cheap ARM devices without high-powered versions of the CPU are crap as general-purpose CPUs, even relative to Atoms. Higher-end ARMs aren't too bad as long as you don't require a lot of FP performance (or you have a GPU to offload the heavy stuff to, like the Tegra/Tegra 2). However, if you go to a high-end ARM, an Atom is actually cheaper. So at that price point you may be competing with CULVs, which are in a whole different performance class.

So what are the sweet spots for ARM?

(1) An obvious one: things that need to be really tiny, like phones. Atom's simply aren't as small at this point.

(2) Another obvious one: things that need to be really low power and inexpensive, and that don't need Atom-level performance. There are a variety of less expensive ARMs that Atoms don't even compete with.

(3) Devices like the iPad: relatively expensive devices (compared with entry level netbooks) where it's worth the money to keep the power draw down to Atom levels while having greater performance capabilities than the Atom. The iPad is hamstrung by it's lack of RAM (128K available to an application), but my guess is that if you gave a 4-core Cortex-A9 a gig of DDR2 to work with and a wide memory bus, it could run circles around an N450 (for fully parallelizable tasks without a heavy FP component) with a similar power draw. A Tegra's power draw is probably higher than an Atom's, but a much lower power way than Atom + Ion to get graphics acceleration.

Now, regarding the web page or whatever you show in the image above, the question is what happens when you actually try to USE this "store". The constant problem with Linux has been a very thin veneer of prettiness which falls apart as soon as you actually try to do something, and this display is not much different from, for example, Port Authority, the GUI browser for the MacPorts collection. But all that is is a browser for the collection --- as soon as you make your choice you then are back to the standard sort of Ports world of multiple downloads, makes (some of which then fail) etc.

It's certainly better than the CLI alternative. It's also certainly nothing like the app store, and it's silly to pretend that it is.

In addition, the app store, for all its MANY MANY faults, provides one with at least some guidance as to the nature of each program. You see screen shots, you get a multi-paragraph description provided by the developer, links to web pages if developer wants to say more, user reviews and ratings (which can be useful, especially when they point out the flaws and limitations in a product). The MacPorts collection, while valuable if you know the exact package you want, provides none of these --- does the Ubuntu package collection do so?

"It shows a single-core 800MHz A8 squaring off against an Atom N450 downclocked to 1GHz, as well as a Via Nano and a Mobile Athlon. Typically the N450 will run at 1.6GHz, but as you said, A9s come with up to 4 CPUs, and the clock can be scaled up as well.

The A8 holds its own on most of the integer-based test, but is awful on most of the FP tests, and using the most common memory configuration for ARM, performs terribly on memory throughput. Of course, there's no rule saying ARM devices can't use faster memory."

You avoid stating the important point, the ESSENTIAL point, that throughout all this the Atom uses 4x, 2.5x, 7x the power of the ARM depending on the task.

In other words, THE ARM IS OPTIMIZED FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN RAW COMPUTATION. If what you need is raw computational power, buy a high-speed chip. But buying a truck, then complaining that it doesn't do 150mph is as stupid as buying a sportscar and then complaining that it doesn't have space to store all your plumbing tools.

In what way is the ARM processor slow? I'm sure I heard that Cortex-A9 reaches 2GHz, but of course we all know that clock frequency doesn't scale any more. So it is also a multi-core processor - up to 4 CPUs.

To counteract your ridiculous video assertions, here is a video of a Texas Intruments Beagle board development system decoding 720p video - in software - on an ARM Cortex-A8 processor, using a NEON optimised video codec:

You do know what NEON is, right? If not, check out ARMs web-site - you might then re-evaluate most of your opinions.

I don't really see a cohesive arguement in what you are saying. The ARM processor comes in many forms, and hits many performance points. From the Cortex-M0 to the Cortex-A9, and in the future we will see the Eagle core.

We can indeed pick our metrics, but ultimately the market will dictate what happens over and above any conjectures that are made by people such as yourself and I.

It shows a single-core 800MHz A8 squaring off against an Atom N450 downclocked to 1GHz, as well as a Via Nano and a Mobile Athlon. Typically the N450 will run at 1.6GHz, but as you said, A9s come with up to 4 CPUs, and the clock can be scaled up as well.

The A8 holds its own on most of the integer-based test, but is awful on most of the FP tests, and using the most common memory configuration for ARM, performs terribly on memory throughput. Of course, there's no rule saying ARM devices can't use faster memory.

My personal takeaway: cheap ARM devices without high-powered versions of the CPU are crap as general-purpose CPUs, even relative to Atoms. Higher-end ARMs aren't too bad as long as you don't require a lot of FP performance (or you have a GPU to offload the heavy stuff to, like the Tegra/Tegra 2). However, if you go to a high-end ARM, an Atom is actually cheaper. So at that price point you may be competing with CULVs, which are in a whole different performance class.

So what are the sweet spots for ARM?

(1) An obvious one: things that need to be really tiny, like phones. Atom's simply aren't as small at this point.

(2) Another obvious one: things that need to be really low power and inexpensive, and that don't need Atom-level performance. There are a variety of less expensive ARMs that Atoms don't even compete with.

(3) Devices like the iPad: relatively expensive devices (compared with entry level netbooks) where it's worth the money to keep the power draw down to Atom levels while having greater performance capabilities than the Atom. The iPad is hamstrung by it's lack of RAM (128K available to an application), but my guess is that if you gave a 4-core Cortex-A9 a gig of DDR2 to work with and a wide memory bus, it could run circles around an N450 (for fully parallelizable tasks without a heavy FP component) with a similar power draw. A Tegra's power draw is probably higher than an Atom's, but a much lower power way than Atom + Ion to get graphics acceleration.

I'm pleased that I was able to provide a formal counter-example to Jedidiah's statements by just providing a link to a youtube video.

However, the argument you pose regarding the benchmarking you did for BSN is a slightly different story. I like the job you did there, and the write up is quite extensive. I think you are comparing very different hardware, though. I think the real issue lie at the two cross-over points - power and performance - as time goes on.

The question really is - will ARM catch Intel in performance - at roughly the same power - before Intel catches arm on power, for roughly the same performance. I think everyone knows where they have to be in the other persons camp, and the race to get there isn't even over once they get there. They still need to win market share after arriving.